Read More

In essence, a process is now underway that could see those charged face a jury trial - and nothing should be done that could influence prospective jurors that someone is guilty.

This means social media posts - whether a profile has 10 or 10,000 followers - should not include comments that implies any suspect is guilty of the offence they have been accused of.

Doing so could provide a basis for a defendant to argue they can not get a fair hearing.

WHAT ABOUT THE INFORMATION ALREADY OUT THERE?

Lawyers representing those accused of wrongdoing could argue that, because so much has been said, heard and written about their clients’ involvement in Hillsborough or its aftermath, it would be impossible for them to get a fair trial.

That is not the case, however.

A number of legal precedents exist that state no matter how well known an accused may be, they can still be given a fair hearing in a public court of law.

Arguments include the ‘fade factor’ - which suggests the impact of past stories fades in the minds of jurors over the time between a suspect being charged and a resulting trial, a process which often takes months and months.

It is also established that jurors are capable of reaching fair decisions based solely on the evidence they hear in a trial, and that the ‘drama’ of the courtroom environment helps people focus simply on that which is put before them.

While you could not write, for instance, that it was the correct decision to charge a suspect and why, you could post that you disagree over the decision not to charge someone and explain your reasoning.

There is no potential jury to prejudice, so there is no fear of contempt.

Just be aware that those not charged could potentially sue for defamation if they can prove claims against them cause serious harm to their reputation and are not fair comment.